Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184426)	3/9/2004 9:27:32 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572774

Ten, re: To you, your father is entitled to his Social Security benefits because of what he went through. The charity has now turned into an entitlement. No longer do the benefits represent the donations of the youth who are able to give up part of their paycheck for the care of the elderly. Now the benefits represent a right, something that belongs to the elderly by nature of their very being. There is no charity involved, just an abstract idea called The Great Society, i.e. government. It was never "charity", it was always a social program. Folks pay in, folks draw out. Those of us who paid in supported and support current folks that are retired, and I don't hear too many people complaining. Frankly it's working, and will probably work beyond the blip that is the baby boomer retirement. And that's a very good thing; people helping themselves, and others, get along. You propose a Pollyanna alternative where all the Christians are going to support their parents. One problem could be old folks without kids. The other problem is that a lot of folks are not Christian, and that many Christians are not good generous people. Ten, government is not inherently bad. Religion is not the only solution, and is NOT inherently good. SS is a decent program (not perfect) that keeps many old folks from going hungry. What you propose might work in a village. It doesn't work in a modern, complex, overcrowded urban society. Frankly, together, with a govenment, we are superior to the sum of our parts. That's what Democracy is about. If you wish for a religion based voluntary social system, then be careful what you wish for. I understand your point, and it's a great utopian dream. But it's just a dream. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184426)	3/9/2004 10:53:28 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572774

o you, your father is entitled to his Social Security benefits because of what he went through. The charity has now turned into an entitlement. He is not entitled because of what he went through...he is because he has worked and paid in the system for 40 years. To follow your solution, I would be able and willing t help support my dad if he needed it, assuming he does not get really sick and need long term care or surgery. He would bankrupt my household in a few months if that were to happen in your world devoid of entitlements (oops..i mean charity). But we are not all as fortunate as I am even in the best case scenario. What's the parachute in the worst case scenario? Where's the certainty in a process that depends on true charity or in the case of a broken or unable family? Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184426)	3/10/2004 2:13:00 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572774

However, you just made my point for me. To you, your father is entitled to his Social Security benefits because of what he went through. The charity has now turned into an entitlement. No longer do the benefits represent the donations of the youth who are able to give up part of their paycheck for the care of the elderly. Now the benefits represent a right, something that belongs to the elderly by nature of their very being. There is no charity involved, just an abstract idea called The Great Society, i.e. government. You make SS sound like an evil plot and the word 'entitlement' turns into a curse word when you post. ted